Republicae-Seditionist wrote:
Viewed in their worst light, the allegations made against Craig hardly seem to rise to the level of criminal conduct.
Solicitation for sex in a public washroom, especially without consummation, appears to be a victimless crime. However, users of the facility should expect to not have unwanted sexual advances made to them in this venue.
Why? why is the expectation of one person sufficient to incur criminal penalties on another? Seems to favor one person's expectations over another's and I don't seem to find that in either the US nor any state constitution.
I am as liberal on this issue as any on these pages, but even I can support this as a community standard, inasmuch as parents with children and unattended children use the facility. Moreover, any user should be free of being solicited for, or having to encounter sexual activity in this public venue. This is not a victimless crime, if only for providing a public nuisance. So viewed in their worst light, Sen. Craig's actions were criminal.
Again, I see no reason to criminalize solicitation, wanted or unwanted, at least of any adult. I am not a fan of the current predeliction to try to sanitize life for children, but don't want to go off on that tangent so will give you the power to protect children from sexual solicitation.
Actual sexual activity, if in the presence of a person
other than a police officer stationed there solely to observe the activity provides a more solid basis for criminal penalties, but just tapping one's feet and motiioning with hands should never be criminal.
Contrast this to a venue that adult males would frequent with the understanding and expectatiion that sexual solicitatiion and activity would take place, as a bath house, bookstore, bar, etc.
Sexual acts between consenting adults in such venues are victimless.
It is very significant to note that this is not activity that is inherent in the homosexual lifestyle. The activity in question is sexually compulsive behavior that indicates an inppropriate obsession with sex. In going to public places to engage in anonymous sexual activity, a sexually addicted person is seeking an ever higher level of excitement and risk taking and demonstrates impaired judgement and possible criminal behavior that can lead to arrest, prosecution, community exposure, personal and professional ruin. In fact, such escalated acting out behaviors as Craig's could be found in self indentified heterosexual male sex addicts seeking an ever greater high. In this context sexual acting out is not about sexual gratification any more than alcoholism is about being thirsty. It is compulsive; an addiction. It is not an orientation issue, but a disease. As is compatible with addicts, Mr. Craig appears to lack insight into these issues, and persists in denial, not only to the world, but to himself.
I agree and this is what I have been saying all along. However, the recognition of sexual addiction as a phenomenon would roil the thinking of many Americans if the resistence to it even among 12 step groups is an indication.
